History, Reality, and Point of View

All I could think about as I read this week was what is going on in my senior composition course. We are reading The Jungle and talking about socialism vs. capitalism and of course Marxism. They had to know the context in order for to understand the content; once that was untangled, they really started to look at the book with a new set of eyes; a new 'mode of human sense perception' so-to-say. Reading Eagleton caused me to think about history and what is real and "pseudo-real". Sinclair made the real seem pseudo-real and, in doing so, caused history to change. My seniors have so far concluded that in theory, Marxism is great, but it is humanity that destroys it; therefore, society will never be classless. This then tied into Benjamin's "Mechanical Reproduction". Artists, be they authors, sculptors, or painter, reproduce 'things' from their perspectives and viewpoints. What they see is what they create; hence, The Jungle, To Kill a Mockingbird, The Kite Runner, Schindler's List, Malcom X, and W.

Literature is art as is film, photography, etc. However, things tend to get all jumbled up and the public is left to try and determine things on their own. Actors are not the people they portray on screen as authors are not the characters or narrator they create; they are a personality, but not necessarily their personality. Photographs are taken from one point of view or perspective and then published from that point of view so the public can see the same point of view as the photographer, as is literature of any form. It all seems to be a lot of manipulation. We are constantly told by the critics and/or experts what is good and what is bad. We do, though, determine what is aesthetically appealing or grotesque and then become the critic. So to whom do we listen? The authors, journalists, photographers, painters, film writers, directors, or actors?

History has a part in our literature, paintings, pictures, and film; but it is from the creator's point of view from which we see. Sinclair caused a nation to change from sharing his point of view; granted it wasn't the change he wanted to see, but it was a change nonetheless. Benjamin says it himself, "During long periods of history, the mode of human sense perception changes with humanity's entire mode of existence. The manner in which human sense perception is organized, the medium in which it is accomplished, is determined not only by nature but by historical circumstances as well" (1235). Art offers us one point of view, the creator's; interpretation gives us many points of view and a lot of it is based on the current events and realities.

Too Many -isms

"Feminism is a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression" (Hooks, 1). Isn't that what racism, classism, ageism, etc. also try to do? Just put -ism at the end of any word and there you have a new movement! I understand the need for equality, but a double standard is always involved. Feminism is a good example, I think, of context vs. content. We need to know the history, the background, of the era in order to understand the meaning behind the driving forces of the movement. This topic definitely has a center. I became frustrated at points with the Hooks reading and wanted to move to the content like Barry did. Analyzing the words, the language, the form was more interesting to me than interpreting meaning for this particular unit. Therefore, I think I want to focus on the idea Barry presents with language and how there is masculine and feminine language.

Having recently read the Bronte canon, I find that what Barry discusses holds some truth to it. When Charlotte wrote The Professor, she was trying to write from a male's point of view - the book was horrible. Most authors write what they know. I admire Ms. Bronte for publishing an average book under a male pseudonym (Acton Bell), but her best work was written from her female perspective. I agree that we learn our gender through our culture and our society; and the patriarch of our world causes a cultural oppression expected by all individuals. Literature only seems to reiterate that. One of the things I liked about Hook was she was not 'anti-male' or male-bashing, but she wanted to end sexism for both parties involved. Literature could be the mechanism that offers the solution; but couldn't literature do that for any of the -isms?

From the beginning of time, women have had to work hard to be recognized because of a male dominated society. Our literature is a reflection of the struggles humanity has faced, and feminism in only one of the many different struggles we have encountered in our short existence on Earth. Remember, our literature is a record of our human experiences and we rely on it to show us the world as it was, is, and might be. This particular movement and these particular readings are a good example of how important context is in literature. Through the context we learn the content. When we understand the content, we can understand the language be it masculine or feminine.

So Be It!

I fear I am the last one to post this week; it has been one of those weekends, so be it...

I had a difficult time trying to read everything and wrap my brain around all of it; so I am going to try to comment on one section I might have some semblance of a grasp on - hegemony. From what I understand, hegemony is control. Well, if we are speaking of control and hegemony as rhetoric, since this is a class concerning rhetoric, I think I can agree with the simple definition of control. Now, as to who has control is a debatable question. Is control found in the political powers that be, the societal powers that be, or is it found within the self? I was reminded of the ancients, the way they addressed crowds and the way they won the admiration of the audience. Hegemony seems to define what the ancients were doing - breaking classes down by domination and subordination. Being the dominate individual or class definitely gives you the upper hand in society because you create thought and have power which makes others subordinate allowing you to have control.

Isn't that what we, as teachers, do in the classroom on a daily basis? We try to dominate a room of 30+ unruly teenagers, who will eventually submit to our demands, ultimately giving us the control needed for social progress in a culture of learning, right? Control, that is the key; but how it is established and practiced is based on how the dominate individual sees and understands him/herself. Thus enters hegemony.

So what really governs and controls us? The reading says, based on my meek interpretation, that our culture determines our social process which in turn offers us our ideology. However, there are many different cultures I belong to; therefore, I follow a variety of social processes and eventually end up with several ideologies; but where are those ideologies found? In society or in me? The readings left me with nothing more than an almost infinite list of questions. So what does that say about my social process and culture? All of this only hurts my always-already confused head. Amen- So Be It!

Words Are Just Words, Right?

This week's reading theme seems to address power and its roots. Words are words, end of story; however, what gives words their power is based on the context in which the words are spoken/written. Connotation is what gives words their power, their meaning.

Foucault talks about subjugated knowledges and types of these knowledges: historical knowleges and social knowledges (130). From what I gather, the historical knowldeges are hidden, changed, and denied while the social knowledges are those that have mutated the historical so that common discourses can understand what is happening. We determine what is popular, right, and just based on who says it is popular, right, and just. Power itself is only a word, and as Foucault says power is "...neither given, nor exchanged, nor recovered, but rather exercised, and that it only exists in action" (133). So if we tie power to words, then when the words are exercised at the right time in the right context, the speaker has all the power in the world? Possibly...

Jameson talks about the social and historical resonance of texts; but again, words are words until they are given power in the appropriate setting by the appropriate person. One can totalize thought if the audience is captive, allowing power to be exercised.

Interpretations, illusions, criticisms can probably share similar definitions; however, each is very different when we interpret, illustrate or criticise what each means to us. If my definition is better than yours, does that mean I have the power? Can I captivate and totalize thought in the audience? Could I run the world? I think only if I decide to exercise the power of the language. I was reminded of Carlos Mencia after reading Foucault and Jameson. He believes how we interpret words ourselves is what gives the words the power. A word is just a bunch of letters put together to make a sound - the meaning is given when we decide to interpret the sound. Mencia is right on; we become offended by language and words because we empower the speaker to offend us. Words are only words.

Post Whatisms? C'mon kids, get it together.

Peter Barry describes post-structuralism, deconstruction, and postmodernism the way younger generations would describe older generations or visa verse. I couldn't help but think of the arguments between generations of people. Page 60 to 61 really gave me this image because Barry was comparing structuralists to post-structuralists. Do we not learn from our predecessors and then take what they teach us and make it better or unique or whatever else to show how we can make a difference? It is basically organization vs. chaos and that is how my 83 year old grandmother views my generation - very chaotic. It's not like it used to be in the 'old days', but neither is anything else; and that is what makes the difference between the two. What is being said does not seem to matter as much as how it is being said which brings us back to what rhetoric really is - how the message is delivered. The post-structuralists and postmodernists break away from what was accepted as real and true and developed their own realities and truths - that is a big step to take. Longing for the past does not accomplish anything for the future. But what we have read throughout the semester thus far is a scaffold of what the ancients developed long ago.

I have read Barthe's "Death of the Author" and I really like the last line of the essay "...the birth of the reader must be requited by the death of the Author." The death of the author does allow the reader a certain amount of freedom as Barry points out (65), but don't we need some structure in order to understand what the product is supposed to be; or can chaos and freedom give us the final product as well? Individual interpretation is going to happen and rhetoric is rhetoric no matter how you look at it; it is the theory that determines how we will interpret or analyze a specific piece of work, from music to art to literature.

Post whatisms? I am finally starting to see and understand what my teachers' theories were when I was a student and I find it fascinating. I am also starting to see and understand what my colleagues' theories might be. What is even more exciting for me is that I am starting to match my pedagogy to certain theories based on what I have learned; I have always known my pedagogy, and it changes from class to class, year to year; but it has been fun matching it to the theories, people, authors, philosophers, etc. in the literature we have read.

Finding Meaning

Okay, here is what I got out of this week's reading:

The audience, no matter the level of education, can interpret a text based on his or her ability to relate to the text; but the reader should not pay much attention to the context or author of the text.

Do we interpret a text based on our personal background knowledge? Or, do we interpret the the text based on the author's time, place, knowledge, and identity? OR, do we interpret a text based solely on the words in the text? I seem to struggle with these questions. Does the interpretation change once the reader knows and understands who wrote the text and in what context? I started thinking about form, content, and context (again) and their relationship. Basically this is what I came up with:

Language determines the meaning, which in turn helps the interpretation in the readers' minds. Based on what the readers know of the language, interpretations vary. If the readers knows anything about the author, interpretations may change. If we only look at the words, language, and structure of the literature, we can criticize and analyze the literature without worrying about the meaning, because we are not interpreting the meaning. Then do interpretation and analysis/criticism mean the same thing? I thought about techniques I use to teach literature and determined that both can be accomplished, but interpretation and analysis/criticism are not the same thing. I think interpretation is looking at why something is said or written to find meaning, and analysis/criticism is how it is spoken or written to identify structure, form, and style. I do agree to analyze literature the author must be divorced from the text and the audience must look at the structure, form, and language. Interpretation and analysis can coexist because they are related, but not the same.

I really like what Culler has to say about literature and interpretation: "...one should seek ways of analyzing the work as an objective artifact" (100). If we treat literature as an 'artifact', then we must know from where and when it came. But to be objective, we must not have any preconceived notions about the artifact. This is nearly impossible because, as humans, we always bring what we know about something to the table. If we take the author and meaning away from the work, will the work have the same affect on us? The language should be doing the speaking, not the author; therefore, from where and when the artifact came should not matter. Poetry is a perfect example of this. Content in poetry can and should be immortal; the style, form, and language speaks to us without identification of the time, place, and poet; but once the poet is identified, then interpretation will probably change.

I think about the 'classics' we teach in high school; three examples would be: Fahrenheit 451, To Kill a Mockingbird, and Frankenstein. These three texts live on today because students can relate to them in the 21st century. Can they relate to them based solely on the language, structure, or form - analysis? Sure. Do the readers relate to the stories because of their interpretation of meaning? Absolutely. I see both sides of the argument because I have taught the arguments. To only look at language, form, and structure allows the reader to analyze style; to look at the meaning behind the words based on background knowledge and information gives way to personal interpretation. Connection to literature is vital to interpretation. Analysis does lead to interpretation when reading these texts. Once the author is added to the equation, then the text may become much more clear to the audience and the meaning probably will change.

Back to my original questions: do we interpret a text based on our background knowledge or the language and structure? This is a big shift from what the ancients believed, but it is still based on those beliefs. Eloquent language can move, influence, and educate any class because of its beauty. Literary criticism/analysis should be based on how the text relays information and not the meaning of what is being said - I agree with the readings in that regard; however, interpretation is a different category. It's similar to rhetoric - is it an art or is it a skill?

Science, Theology, and Rhetoric

What I find most interesting about this week's reading is how rhetoric has broken into different branches and starts to evolve to include theology and science; the precursor to separation of church and state? Prior to the Renaissance period, rhetoric focused primarily on speech and how the spoken language influenced people. But during this time, philosophers and rhetors have dissected this "art" into a science to include more than just the educated and privileged aristocrats. At the beginning of chapter five Conley states "...the conviction that knowledge ought to serve practical ends. Human learning ought to have some utility for life; education should instruct not only the intellect but also the will; and the only effective means of conveying truth is by persuasion and eloquent discussion, not by logical demonstration." (110). This seems to be the theme throughout the Renaissance. Logical demonstration was not the goal of rhetoric, but offering purpose to existence was.

During this time in history, there was a lot of conflict. In times of conflict, people look to leaders - who should be educated and well-versed - for guidance and support. Therefore, leaders looked to the old wise folks for guidance to influence and ease the public. It seems Quintilian and Cicero had the greatest influence for the rhetors of the Renaissance. The idea that the leaders looked to the ancients is found on pg. 113, "Most of those Florentines, who could by virtue of their education and standing call themselves 'humanists' were not just scholars but politically active men. Many of them were professional orators who were esteemed because they advocated a code of civic duty, gave education a genuine relevance to political life, and were themselves accomplished speakers, as close as could be imagined to Quintilian's vir bonus dicendi peritus."

But what I really see happening here is that the general public is being allowed an education. Elitism still exists, but it is not as prominent when it comes to education. "...a liberal education, the possession of technical skills that made the active life feasible, and good character" are things all men and women could attain (114). One did not have to be eloquent in order to be wise. As was discussed in class weeks past, what does it mean to be morally good and is a good orator steeped in morality? The impression I get is that Conley believes one cannot be morally good and be a politician at the same time. Evidence of this can be found on page 115, "...devoid of the requirement that the orator be a good man, in the moral sense. Rhetoric was, rather a pragmatic political art indifferent to morality."

As to what I said at the beginning of this blog, what interests me most is the inclusion of theology and science. Breaking something down into its simplest forms is what makes it so easy to understand. Looking at the parts of the whole (metonymy and synecdoche) and the relationships between parts (metaphor and irony) are what help the hearer/audience interpret the message. I think a good orator and morally right orator is one who can do this and have the audience understand what the message is. To be virtuous and true is to be able to talk to the audience. It shouldn't' t matter the discourse, the message should stay the same. That is where the oxymoron of a morally good politician is difficult to understand. When something is put in its simplest form, it is easy to understand, therefore, easy to argue. Eloquence does not get in the way of wisdom.

Augustine states in Matsen on pg. 372, "...although our teacher is necessarily the spokesman of great subjects, he need not necessarily always speak in grand style, but in a subdued manner when something is being explained, moderately when a thing is being criticised or commended; but when something ought to be done, and we are speaking to those who ought to do it, although they do not wish to, then the matter which is an important one, should be stated in the grand style, and in a manner adapted to move their hearts." To move the heart is the ultimate goal of rhetoric. How one goes about doing that is based on the discourse. Tone, inflection, vocabulary, etc. all play a role in moving the heart. But what I see as being true and virtuous is keeping the message the same no matter the audience.

So to sum up, rhetoric has transformed from the ancients, but the ancients have not been forgotten. They sometimes are not recognized or credited by the new philosophers and rhetors, but they have influenced the Renaissance period. Rhetoric transformed to include theology and science, but isn't the goal virtually the same?